1975 P Cr (PLP)

Queen‑Emperor v. B. G. Tilak and another I L R 1922 Bom. 112 foll. Raja Haq Nawaz for Applicant. Advocate‑General (Sind) for the State. A case has been registered against the applicant under rules 42 and 49 of Defence of Pakistan Rules read with section 16 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance for a speech made in November 1973. The applicant has applied for bail before arrest and the learned Advocate‑General has supplied a copy of the speech for which the case has been registered against the applicant. I would recorded here Mr. Raja Haq Nawaz's submission that the applicant denies completely having made the speech or any similar speech. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had only addressed a meeting of his own party and he emphatically repudiates the allegation that the applicant had made a speech to the public. He also relies on the fact that the speech was made some months ago. I would however refrain from going into these submissions as they can only be decided when the evidence is recorded. But I would now turn to the speech. As submitted by the learned Advocate‑General, it contains sweeping allegations against the Government of corruptions. Allegations are also made against the Prime Minister and the then Governor of Baluchistan, and the Government is criticised for what is described as sending the army to Baluchistan. The speech also contains a demand in strong language for changing the Constitution of the country. Finally the learned Advocate‑General takes strong exception to a passage which, according to translated copy, states that the party of the applicant intended to attempt treason. As this hardly makes sense, the learned Advocate‑General submitted that a better translation of the relevant passage would be that the people are disloyal to the country, that he (the speaker) is loyal to the country, but that his party would not be loyal to the Government. Mr. Haq Nawaz on the other hand submitted that the speech could not bar the applicant from obtaining bail, and he referred me to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Azad Papers Ltd. and others v. Province of Sind (P L D 1974 Kar. 81). There the question was of construing section 24 of the Press and Publications Ordinance the relevant clauses of which are similar to the rules under which the case has been registered against the applicants, and at this stage the judgment cited appears prima facie to support this submission of Mr. Haq Nawaz. So does the classic judgment of Gwyer, C. J. in Majumdar's case (A I R 1942 Pat. 22) which we followed in the Azad Papers' case. The Advocate‑General however referred me to a judgment of Rankin, C J. (as he then was) A I R 1956 Cal. 1085 and to a judgment reported in I L R 1959 Cal. 1197. I have examined these judgments, specialty the judgment of Rankin, C. J. and they support the learned Advocate‑General's contention. But I may explain here that Rankin, C. J. followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Queen‑Emperor v. B. G. Tilak and anther (I L R 1922 Bom. 112). But in his classic judgment in Majumdar's case, Gwyer, C. J. held that the question of what is sedition has to be considered in the background of changing political considerations. And following this judgment, in the Azad Papers' case we had dissented from the view in Tilak's case. In the circumstance discussed, whatever be the position after evidence is recorded, the applicant has made out a case for bail at this stage. But I would clarify that my observations are of tentative nature only. The application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Bail allowed.